>>> "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com> 11/17/99 02:44PM >>>
> > Clinton is a far worse menace to
> > individual freedoms then all the militia men combined.
>
>On that, Carrol, we are in complete agreement. And I would add that Clinton
>is more of a menace than Reagan, as well. Since what passes for the Left
>was willing to stand up and fight Reaganism, but rolled over like a willing
>supplicant when the same meanness came dressed as Clintonism.
While I fear any kind of emerging consensus could spoil the List's basic dynamics (smiley face), I too will agree to Clinton's stinkerissimo status.
(((((((((((((
Charles: What about Steve Perry's criticism about discussing Clinton , Bush and Reagan as individuals ? It is the ruling class groups that Clinton , Bush (both Bush's) and Reagan represent, not the individuals , that are dangerous.
And on a related issue, since only the working class can defeat the bourgeoisie, demogogic ideologies that divert working class anger at the system into blind allies, especially those highly tinged with racism and anti-communism, are as much a "threat" as Clinton as an individual.
I also dissent on the notion of Clintonism as a fascist danger. `This ignores the fact that the democratic republican form is the preferred type of bourgeois rule. The bourgeoisie only turn to fascism in crisis. U.S. capitalism is far from crisis today ( ask Doug). Clinton is presiding over a neo-liberal or classical democratic republican ( as well as DemRep) regime. Any U.S. fascism will come later during a crisis, a threat of working class power seizure, and it will be militia type ideologies that play a more important role than Clintonism, which will be gone by "then", if "then" does hit us.
I dissent from the consensus.
CB